1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

My Salary Cap Thoughts

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by Ryan, Jul 29, 2008.

  1. Ryan

    Ryan Well-Known Member

    +9,387 /402
    I was just thinking guys, of what things we could do to improve the game, and retain and ATTAIN new fresh players, and here were my thoughts.

    1. Each year, July 1 (for tax purposes) each club nominates TWO players that are listed as the "Marquee" players of their clubs, and are registered as such. Now, these players are completely exempt under the salary cap, and can be paid by whatever means are necessary. Example, a team sponsor can use their services (say Brett Stewart and Smiths Crisps), and pay them a motza for it. Clubs still get paid their NRL grant, so this could also go toward marquee signings.

    2. The salary cap remains the same. What this means for the remaining 23 players though (due to point 1) is that the "average" income will rise by an additional $43k per annum, which will also help retain players. This also means the NRL doesn't have to pay more money.

    3. As soon as any non marquee player is selected for any official NRL or ARL form of representative football, they are ellegible for a 5% loading PER GAME (not included in the salary cap) on their annual average contract wage. Example:-
    Anthony Laffranchi has signed a 4 year $900,000 contract. That equates to $225,000 per year (he might actually could be getting paid something different - but average is used). 5% of $225,000 = $11,250.
    This is to be paid by the ARL, NRL. If Laffranchi then played all 3 origins, plus an International, he'd receive an additional $45,000 from the NRL / ARL for that year. If he does it all 4 years of his contract, he'd end up getting $1,080,000 all up, or $270,000 per season, and his club isn't penalised for producing a representative type player.

    4. Marquee players are paid a flat fee of $15,000 per representative game.

    5. Tenure is very important. Exemption from salary cap begins at year 10 from 1st game played not just in 1st grade, but includes the lower grades including SG Ball and Harold Matthews. Exemption tiers:-
    Year 10 - $20,000
    Year 11 - $40,000
    Year 12 - $60,000
    Year 13 - $80,000
    Example. Steve Menzies started playing SG Ball with his Eagles at 15. Beaver is probably the longest one club player, so a prime example. Steve is now 34, and therefore has been playing at The Eagles for 19 years. That,s 10 years that include the exemption amount, or a $200,000 salary cap exemption allowed for that player.
    This will instill players wanting to remain at one club long term. The exemption must be used on the subject player.
    __________________________________________________ ____________

    Now, what are the risks associated with the above salary cap rule changes?

    1. Making an uneven competition. Bronco's may be able to go out and purchase better players than say The Rabbits.
    + Current clubs already have marquee players (but aren't getting paid marquee dollars). The Bulldogs have Sonny Bill Williams, yet The Sea Eagles are still able to beat them.

    The marquee rule then means if the money is right, we can go after a top Union player or two, hell, we may even go after the best French Rugby Union prop. This will only attract more viewers, more fans, and more money into our already great game. This additional revenue, and acquisition of high profile players, will create an overall higher level of interest in the game, and will pull fans through the gates.

    If The Bronco's CAN afford the best player in the world, they'd only be buying a player like Inglis from The Storm, and that just wouldn't happen with the players they already have.

    We have a great product, and I bet our marquee players would be players already IN our competition. There may be a massive signing from union or something, but that news being released would be a heck of a lot better than players defecting.

    Anyway guys - just my thoughts. Rather than complaining about it, I thought I'd try and make some remedies.

    Thanks for your time.
  2. Corso_Pete

    Corso_Pete Well-Known Member Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +46 /0
    The salary cap has problems. no question about that. As far as the payments to marquee players goes that is the reason why Gasnier has gone. St George,Channel 9 &/or the NRL were not able to obtain a deal for him.

    If a player of Gasnier's standing cannot obtain outside payment I would think the odds of doing that for a further 27 players would be remote.
  3. Cameron

    Cameron Cambo

    +669 /35
    you raise a good point pete

    but my question is did gasnier fail to get 3rd party payments because of his history of poor behaviour and contravesy?
  4. Ryan

    Ryan Well-Known Member

    +9,387 /402
    I wonder how Brett Stewart would go attaining 3rd party or even 1st hand sponsorship dollars though Pete. I reckon he's much more marketable. Imagine him advertising Penn's Health line (utilising the diabetes tag). Imagine Lockyer advertising his sponsors products.
    Gasnier wanted out a few years ago, saying it was too hard for him at the time. He then went on the mobile phone issue, and surrounds himself with interesting characters.
    He's no clean skin like Cliffy says.

    Dunno mate, you make a good point though.
    Maybe the NRL, or clubs need to employ and utilise marketing managers better.

    Pepsi, where are you mate??

    It's strange that Barry Hall is in heaps of ads in Sydney, but someone like say Mark Riddell (can't stand the bloke) but a character and well known player of the game isn't.

    I also don't think old fashioned Lowes ads with Tezza and co. do the NRL justice.
  5. Cletus

    Cletus Active Member

    +11 /0
    Lockyer would make a fortune advertising throat lozenges.

    I like the idea of long term players, these days I think 5 years would be long enough to be considered long term. If teams could discount 25% of a players wages after five years, maybe 50% after 8 it would help keep teams together, especially after Grand Finals and rep callups. The advantage would be that teams couldn't have it as part of their package when recruiting players from other teams, so if you produce a good player you have a better chance of keeping them. Maybe even some kind of junior discount so teams can keep their juniors more easily.
  6. fLIP

    fLIP UFO Hunter

    +1,324 /37
    The problem is, what self respecting person would want too be one of the 23 players who don't get to use their skills to their maximum potential.

    If its correct and Sonny will argue the salary cap restraints, he will win and it will just about abolish the salary cap completly.

    How can you sign a contract that then limits your potential earnings as you develop over time. Their is a conflict of laws that I think the NRL have been hoping doesn't get caught out.

    Restraint of trade will win out here but I'm not sure what it will do to the game.

    The thing is, not every NRL player can play overseas. If they all start jumping on the bandwagon of we want what we can get then they are killing themselves. Less marque players means smaller crowds, less interest, less TV rights, less everything for all those left.

    In my opinion, we need to scrap the 3rd party laws being tied in with the salary cap completely. Sure, you could say it will create a senario where clubs will have ready to go 3rd party arrangements for players but IMO, the club who works hardest to get those deals deserves the success that the better players will bring.
  7. CliffyIsGod

    CliffyIsGod Well-Known Member

    +109 /2
    Can anyone tell me why when Terry Hill challenged the cap in the early 90's it failed. What will make SBW win challenging it now?
  8. Chip and Chase

    Chip and Chase True Supporter Staff Member Administrator Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +8,599 /80
    Terry Hill challenged the player draft and he won, not the salary cap.
  9. Canteen Worker

    Canteen Worker Well-Known Member

    +215 /5
    The Cap at present is part of the players agreement with the NRL. It stands because the clubs are happy with it as it preserves the clubs and keeps them viable. Should an individual challenge it, they may have a case, though the cap determines the total amount, not the sum given to individual players. Clubs use the cap to pay some players less or release the ones they do not want.

    Ryan has had some interesting thoughts and at least is trying to be creative on the matter. It is an interesting thought.

    It is a big issue for the Sydney clubs and problematic as there are many teams down here - whereas in Brisbane they have one team and the marketing opportunities are endless. Do you really think many Brisbane players are happy to earn heaps less than those in other places - or do they get a leg-up from all sorts of business and corporate types?

Share This Page